"To destroy 'woman' does not mean that we aim, short of physical destruction, to destroy lesbianism simultaneously with the categories of sex, because lesbianism provides for the moment the only social form in which we can live freely. Lesbian is the only concept I know which is beyond the categories of sex (woman and man), because the designated subject (lesbian) is not a woman, either economically, or politically, or ideologically. For what makes a woman is a specific social relation to a man" (1912).
While Wittig's assertion in the paragraph above that lesbianism is a good distinction because it describes the nature of a relationship rather than the sex of a person, I see just as many problems with perpetuating a term that categorizes sexual orientation. Lesbian helps to do away with gender categories, but homosexual identity is not straightforward either. We run the risk of creating new forms of categorical oppression for homosexuals who do not fit the the lesbian or gay myth that either already is or will be generated the more sex distinctions fade.
"Glee" and "Modern Family" are two current, popular television shows which aim to portray homosexuality and make it a greater part of our culture.
"Glee" is often criticized for the lack of depth in its gay characters. New School student Tyler Raftery makes this argument in his article "Why Gays Should Have a Problem with Glee." The main problem in Glee for a long time was not necessarily Kurt's character, as Raftery argues, it was the fact that there simply were not enough voices. One openly gay character can create a "gay myth" in and of itself. As the show has gone on, though, the cast of homosexual characters has come to include at least four different pictures of what gay can look like. These characters are seeing their sexuality as something they are figuring out. Sexuality proves to be a construction as well, because these characters appear on a spectrum. The two cheerleaders turn out to have different levels of homosexuality, as Brittany is bisexual and is not willing to give up her boyfriend for a female relationship. Blaine is not sure that he is gay after he enjoys kissing Rachel. These characters have to test and approve their sexual identities and find out who they are. Kurt, on the other hand, is both gay and transgendered, but the show features both the flamboyant and completely normal-looking gay characters. Needless to say, they are all extremely simple, as many TV characters are. Raftery cannot find his role model (and neither can anyone else, really) in the mix of simple characters, but Glee has still played a role for many heterosexual people in realizing the need for homosexual sex education, parenting, and acceptance by bringing to light a wide spectrum of issues. Glee fights the compulsory heterosexuality of society despite the use of varying stereotypes and flat characters.
"Modern Family" on the other hand does a terrible job of showing the diversity of the gay population. A recent episode featured the show's gay couple, meeting with their gay friends, having some "time with their homos." Almost all of the gay men are extremely flamboyant with names such as "Longinus" and "Pepper." When Mitch's father says, "Wait, your name is Longinus?" He replies, "I know, I didn't stand a chance!" This moment suggest that there is such thing as a "gay name" making the film even worse. Ironically, Modern Family's efforts to portray gay relationships has earned it praise.
This is a link to an article about the book called The Myth of the Modern Homosexual. Perhaps this is like the "Woman Myth." This is a similar problem is it not?
Wittig says that women are a class. They are seen as slaves and men as masters. Just as the concept of woman couldn't have existed before the slavery of women, the concept of race didn't exist before racial slavery. It may seem that lesbianism escapes the master/slave relationship, but we already have an established heterosexual society, which enslaves the homosexual, disallowing them their full identity. It seems like a contradiction to say that lesbian is a satisfactory category. If women are a class, aren't lesbians?
And if lesbians are a class, then there also must be a false conscious that needs to be overcome. Not to be pretentious, but is it possible Wittig has a similar false consciousness about her lesbian identity? She clearly understands that homosexuals are oppressed, but she still claims her sexual orientation as a primary component of her identity. Gender is a real category, but it does not constitute identity. Sexual orientation is a real category, but it does not constitute identity. There are a vast range of grey areas that defy a direct categorization of gay and straight. There is a spectrum of homo vs. hetersexual attraction and a spectrum of gender performance for both men and women.
Jacqui,
ReplyDeleteSure, anything is possible. But there is a problem w/ using TV as some sort of mirror for society. As Horkheimer/Adorno pointed out, mass media works primarily on stereotypes and feeble formulas (e.g., Disney, Nickelodeon, MTV, ESPN) to keep us interested. While Glee and Modern Family do seem to put gay characters in the fore, you need to notice that they're less likely to put lesbians in the fore. That's where Wittig comes in. I think she's trying to avoid tokenism (e.g., TV shows) because tokenism says little or nothing about how society really thinks of gender/orientational catedgories.
I actually would disagree about lesbians being in tv shows. They show up a lot, usually as a way to make a man seem abandoned and inadequate (see: Friends and Two and a Half Men and... sort of Glee). They are present, they are just stereotyped in a different way from gays. Where gays are generally friendly, horny, and fashionable, lesbians are catty, angry, and feminist. It is true, however, that they seem to be rarely main characters. Like so many females in tv, they are often more present to act as a foil to the male or to drive a plot than to be actual people.
ReplyDelete"It seems like a contradiction to say that lesbian is a satisfactory category. If women are a class, aren't lesbians?"
ReplyDeleteYeah, I had this problem with Wittig, too. It seemed as though she was just being an elitist when it came to analyzing structures and categories; even if she considers lesbians the "null set," it's still nonsensical to assume that the null set isn't in itself a set. That's like trying to say zero isn't a number.